Submitted to Shelton Blog by John Cox
There are to be three incinerators operating in Shelton, if Simpson and Adage have their way. ORCAA has stated that they will be making their determination based on both of Simpson's incinerators operating (but not the Adage incinerator, which is another issue). The City of Shelton, however, is assuming that only one or the other Simpson incinerator will be operating at a time. At the September 23rd information meeting, Simpson admitted that both could be running simultaneously.
We have until October 7th to submit our written comments to Jason Dose, (Jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us ) City of Shelton, 525 W. Cota St., Shelton, WA 98584 asking that the city take into consideration this new information, and make its determination based on Simpson operating both the old and the new incinerators, and include the Adage incinerator as well. How can three incinerators operating in Shelton be considered "Not Significant"?
Below is Katherine Price's letter to Jason Dose:
Subject: Simpson/Solomon Application for Second Biomass Burner,
City of Shelton Harbor
From: Katherine Price
Date: Mon, September 27, 2010 2:39 pm
To: jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us
Dear Jason:
I am writing you today to take advantage of the public comment period, which ends on October 7, 2010, in connection with the second biomass incinerator Simpson/Solomon proposes to build and operate at the harbor.
For the record, my name is Katherine Price and I live at 603 South 9th Street, Shelton, Washington. This is up Turner Hill from the harbor.
My family and I are already recipients of the particulate matter which is too small to be captured in the filtering system of the old, existing biomass incinerator in the harbor, which exists to provide steam for purposes of lumber operations in the harbor.
At the time we purchased our home, we were not advised of the health risks of buying a home uphill from the harbor. I am sure no one in our neighborhood understood the ramifications of what was already happening in the harbor, and we are now stuck with the reality of the existing biomass incinerator.
However, we are now being asked to accept a second biomass incinerator, twice the size of the one in the harbor now, and half the size of the one proposed for John's Prairie, which has the same health hazards as the existing incinerator.
Further, this second biomass incinerator is not being built out of necessity. The facility presently operating in the harbor is sufficient for the needs of the companies who receive the benefit of the steam from the existing facility. This second one is being built to take advantage of tax credits and federal, state and local subsidies, as well as to provide a revenue stream through the sale of energy they anticipate generating by the burning of waste.
Adding, quite literally, insult to injury: Simpson has created a new entity (Solomon Renewable Energy), so that Simpson can sell product to Solomon, for purposes of generating energy, thereby receiving tax credits, subsidies, etc., and Solomon can purchase product from Simpson, thereby receiving tax credits, subsidies, etc. This takes double-dipping to a whole new level. While this may not be of relevance to the City of Shelton, it is very relevant to taxpayers.
At a recent public forum, we were advised by a Simpson employee that the newer plant would have greater ability to filter the various dangerous chemical by-products of the incineration process, and would, therefore, be cleaner than the existing plant.
The fact that it is twice the size of the older, dirtier model, makes that statement less than reassuring.
Yes, it can filter better, but it will in fact be processing twice the amount of dangerous by-product (that which we call "micro particulate matter," those things which are too small to be captured by any filtering system proposed to date.)
You have the permit application. You know about the poisons that will in fact not be captured, but will be released into the air. Some of them are measured in tons, so this is no small amount that will be released. Although these will be emitted through a much taller chimney/smokestack and a better filtration system, they will, nevertheless, float down into the surrounding community, the harbor, and my neighborhood.
Of greatest concern are the dioxins, of which there is no safe level; so the speaker at the Thursday, September 23, 2010, meeting who thought he would impress "death" with his "point zerozerozerozero, etc." answer, did not impress the members of the audience who have been trying to absorb all of the science in connection with the more dangerous side-effects of having biomass incinerators in communities.
Theresa Jacobson submitted the letters written by the Mason General Hospital staff at the Thursday meeting. These letters were written to the Port of Shelton Commissioners, and to the Board of County Commissioners.
The possession of these letters alone will subject the City of Shelton to liability for proceeding with the project in the face of the health hazards identified by the medical community. It will be the City of Shelton who faces the citizen ire and responds to the multiple lawsuits, not the LLCs who will put the liability and the burden on our city.
In the letters from the physicians, the reader is directed to a review of the American Heart Association article, Circulation June 2010: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease.
Because Simpson/Solomon has an existing plant, which already provides the steam necessary for the business in the harbor, the only reason to build this newer, bigger, more dangerous model, is to take advantage of laws that will hopefully be changed before the plant will be operational. There is legislation being written in Olympia right now to remove biomass from the list of approved green, renewable energy, sources.
The EPA is reviewing the science as we argue, and should shortly rule against biomass incinerators, thus removing the incentive for corporations to build these facilities.
The City of Shelton has been put on notice by the medical community that: "...these facilities pose unacceptable health risks."
To permit this plant, inside the city limits, to rain particulate matter down on neighborhoods such as mine, is to open the city to unacceptable liability. Liability we can ill afford during this time of budget crisis, when we are talking about cutting health benefits to our police officers.
I urge the City of Shelton to take the information provided by the medical community seriously, and to deny Simpson/Solomon a permit to build a second biomass incinerator in the harbor.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I hope they will help the city make a decision which is in the best interest of the City of Shelton, and the citizens of the City of Shelton.
Katherine A. Price
John R. Price
603 South 9th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
No comments:
Post a Comment